Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[natty dread]

If you want to encourage small businesses, stop passing massive new governmental regulations. It's the big corporations that are pushing for many of them because they can just eat those costs long enough to drive the small businesses out of the market since the new regulations cost way more proportionally for small businesses. The government is not the solution to our income disparity; it's a contributor to it.

Maybe you need different kinds of regulations.

[GreecePwns]

Which definition of capitalism do we use?

Adam Smith, the undisputed father of capitalism, once said, "It is not unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in proportion." So, using NS' logic, either that flat-tax talk is not capitalism, or the father of capitalism is a socialist.

[BigBallinStalin]

If say the person with the 99 apples knows how to grow them, while the people with <1 don't, then the person with the 99 apples plants some of them and grows more apples, while the people with less than one eat them and they are gone. Of course most people would know how to plant an apple so this is overly simplistic, but this is capitalism...socialism is why European economies have not grown nearly as fast as the US over the last 30+ years.

Capitalism is what is getting the whole world fucked right now.

You have to stop thinking in black & white terms, stop looking at the world through partisan glasses for a minute and think. Why does everything have to be socialism vs. capitalism, liberal vs. conservative, etc.?

I tell you why: the big guys find it easier to control you by simplifying all discussion and debate to extreme talking points. They drum up this huge us vs. them mentality where you have to choose a side, because then it's easier to control you - they get you to blindly root for your own side and make you oblivious to the fact that both sides are only a smoke screen, they amount to the same thing in the end.

Essentially for economic systems, it's either command economy/central planning versus market economy/spontaneous order. The biggest difference between capitalism and socialism are profit-seeking incentives versus the state controlling the means of production (at its extreme), or the discouraged, alternative form of socialism: co-operatives and the like (no state involvement).

Unfortunately, the "mixed economy" of the US doesn't offer lovely subsidies or exemption from taxes for co-ops. Why? Because that form of socialism doesn't add to the state's sphere of influence.

As for your "elite conspiracy" position, it fails to accurately describe the world because the world is much more complex. Ideologies seem to take a life of their own, and they become highly agitated during times of crises, like the current one. That, and most people aren't well-informed on economics (or even 90% of most issues--including me), so what we're left with its talking points from media and the small whirring noises of millions of brains going at it.

Many Americans tend to have a distorted view of Capitalism and Socialism, which should be no surprise considering how much influence the government can exert on our education. But also, there's nationalist sentiments to be had in the private sector (from the elite to the local), so it's difficult to say which is influencing us the most.

I don't advocate the type of communism where the state owns and controls all. I also don't advocate the kind of extreme capitalism where corporations are free to do what they want, have politicians in their pockets, and own a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to the rest of us.

That's the status quo (minus the corporations are "free to do what they want"). They've got much restraints; only a few have high influence on the government "as a whole," which the government isn't, so the case becomes harder to make... Additionally, the elite isn't one decision-making body; they have multiple, incompatible agendas, so the "elite theory" becomes an even more difficult case to make.

You see? The big guys want you to think that socialism is evil, they want you to equate everything except absolute free-market capitalism with USSR-type communism where the state owns everything and controls everything, as if there's no middle road there... because IT BENEFITS THEM. They don't want you questioning the capitalistic system which gives them free hands to shaft you in the ass. Then they get you to believe that they're necessary: that without them you wouldn't have a job, that they provide everything for you... but that's a big lie. We don't need them owning everything, just like we don't need the government owning everything.

In a nutshell: they have a huge pile of apples, and they give you some of the peels, and you think you couldn't live without them. Why can't you tell them to go f*ck themselves and let the people grow the apples themselves?

Honestly, f*ck socialism (the state-empowered variety, and not the community-driven kind). Given the shite record of governments and the dangers of nationalism, we need to reduce the nation-state's scope of authority over economic decision-making as much as possible.

Yeah, we got a middle road: the status quo. The US spends relative to about 50% of the GDP. That's a whole lot of central planning (i.e. "socialism"). The central planning method absolutely concentrates power and wealth to a select few because the legitimized coercion of the state enables this to continue. There's no option to not pay for it; otherwise, you get fined and/or go to jail. The problems you describe already happen with a mixed economy, and those problems are exacerbated when the state controls the means of production for more goods (i.e. more socialism). We're also overlooking fascism/corporatism, which is essentially the same thing with socialism, but the government doesn't own, it just heavily manages the means of production. (Seriously, what's the difference between national socialism and socialism? (rhetorical)).

Besides, what standard are you holding your position in comparison to? "The free market"? It has never existed... so we can't make true comparisons to it... we could look at the 1800s but I don't know much about US history, but I'm still willing to go to compare to those days of significantly less state intervention.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________


However, there were plenty of people with your disposition who believed that the Soviet Union was fucking awesome (way back in the 1920s and 1930s). Boy, that was mistake... sometimes, natty, people let their ideologies blind them. People conflate capitalism with "strong, central government," so we've got Republicans and conservatives. Other people view socailism as a constraint on perceived inabilities of capitalism, yet they'll over look the unintended consequences of state intervention. It's just a tangled web that's difficult to separate.

If you asked me 6 years ago, I'd most likely be fervently agreeing with almost everything you said, but as I learned more about economics, history, and especially political economy, I'm just realizing that the tangled web is even more tangled than I thought.

[thegreekdog]

If I could interject a few words here:

Some, including Natty and Player, assume that the U.S. system is one in which the corporations run wild. And they are probably correct at least to a certain extent. The issue therefore becomes how to limit the power of corporations. Player, and to a lesser extent Natty, believe we can limit power to corporations in our current form of government or something similar. I contend that we've had between 50 and 60 years to do this and, instead of fixing a problem, we've created a problem. Therefore, perhaps it's time to try something different.

We can all agree that in the U.S., we have a realistic choice between two political parties: Democrats and Republicans. The vast majority of the members of both parties do not want to fix the problem of corporate or special interest control, because such people directly benefit from it. Thus, you could vote for President Obama or you could vote for Herman Cain or Mitt Romney, but the things that concern us right now in the U.S., whether Tea Party or Occupy protestor, are not going to change.

[natty dread]

Some, including Natty and Player, assume that the U.S. system is one in which the corporations run wild. And they are probably correct at least to a certain extent.

Compared to where I live, they certainly seem to be. I'm not saying that corporations aren't running wild in other places, I'm sure it happens everywhere... but from what I gather, the problem seems to be more pronounced in the US.

The issue therefore becomes how to limit the power of corporations. Player, and to a lesser extent Natty, believe we can limit power to corporations in our current form of government or something similar. I contend that we've had between 50 and 60 years to do this and, instead of fixing a problem, we've created a problem. Therefore, perhaps it's time to try something different.

I don't really believe that though. I'm not an expert on US politics by any means, but from what I gather, the main problem you have is your 2-party political system that doesn't allow for other political parties... also, the vast amount of money that is required to get a politician elected means politicians are more likely to be easily bought by corporations.

I think you need some kind of system that limits the ability of corporations to finance political campaigns. Stop the political bribery and lobbying. I don't really know how to achieve that, but I think it would help.

Essentially for economic systems, it's either command economy/central planning versus market economy/spontaneous order. The biggest difference between capitalism and socialism are profit-seeking incentives versus the state controlling the means of production (at its extreme), or the discouraged, alternative form of socialism: co-operatives and the like (no state involvement).

Maybe there is a third option, but we just haven't invented it yet?

As for your "elite conspiracy" position, it fails to accurately describe the world because the world is much more complex. Ideologies seem to take a life of their own, and they become highly agitated during times of crises, like the current one. That, and most people aren't well-informed on economics (or even 90% of most issues--including me), so what we're left with its talking points from media and the small whirring noises of millions of brains going at it.

That's a real problem in the world today. Information has become, at the same time, very easy to access, but also so plentiful that it is easy to drown important issues under multiple layers of bullshit. It's hard to figure out what is really going on when there are 10 different sources all claiming different things, and each claiming to be the most reliable one. Even if you apply critical thinking - which not enough people do, it's hard to discern which information you can trust. So it becomes a game of ideologies and extremes... you pick out the source that most closely corresponds to your own ideologies and beliefs, and stick with it. That's where the us vs. them mentality kicks in...

That's the status quo (minus the corporations are "free to do what they want"). They've got much restraints; only a few have high influence on the government "as a whole," which the government isn't, so the case becomes harder to make... Additionally, the elite isn't one decision-making body; they have multiple, incompatible agendas, so the "elite theory" becomes an even more difficult case to make.

But there are lobbying groups, are there not? Not only corporations, but unions, and other groups. And a lot of corporations have similar agendas, ie. wanting to cut corporate taxes or remove certain regulations or add certain other regulations that benefit them...

Sure, there are incompatible agendas as well, but that just means whichever side can pour the most money at it wins...

Honestly, f*ck socialism (the state-empowered variety, and not the community-driven kind). Given the shite record of governments and the dangers of nationalism, we need to reduce the nation-state's scope of authority over economic decision-making as much as possible.

I'm not really sure what you're saying with this.

Yeah, we got a middle road: the status quo.

I think that's a fallacious idea. It's not like there aren't any choices besides "total communism", "total capitalism" or "status quo". That's just as a narrow view... now instead of only seeing two choices, you only see three choices.

Besides, what standard are you holding your position in comparison to? "The free market"? It has never existed... so we can't make true comparisons to it... we could look at the 1800s but I don't know much about US history, but I'm still willing to go to compare to those days of significantly less state intervention.

I don't think it matters. One could also argue that a real, actual communist state has never existed either, and we can still figure out it wouldn't probably be such a good idea - mainly because it's too hard to get it to work.

Both extremes have their achilles heels: either you give too much power to the government, or you give too much power to the corporations, and power corrupts - those people will abuse that power if they have the chance to benefit of it.

How about direct democracy, placing the power to the people? Let the people vote directly on every issue. This is something that has never before been possible, but with modern technology, it would be. I'm sure it would have it's weaknesses, but those could maybe be sorted out... at least it would be an interesting social experiment.

[thegreekdog]

I think you need some kind of system that limits the ability of corporations to finance political campaigns. Stop the political bribery and lobbying. I don't really know how to achieve that, but I think it would help.

I vehemently agree. However, campaign finance would be reformed by those who stand to lose the most by reforming it. In other words, we aren't getting campaign finance reform.

[natty dread]

I think you need some kind of system that limits the ability of corporations to finance political campaigns. Stop the political bribery and lobbying. I don't really know how to achieve that, but I think it would help.

I vehemently agree. However, campaign finance would be reformed by those who stand to lose the most by reforming it. In other words, we aren't getting campaign finance reform.

That's sad.

[thegreekdog]

I think you need some kind of system that limits the ability of corporations to finance political campaigns. Stop the political bribery and lobbying. I don't really know how to achieve that, but I think it would help.

I vehemently agree. However, campaign finance would be reformed by those who stand to lose the most by reforming it. In other words, we aren't getting campaign finance reform.

That's sad.

It sure is. I haven't yet resigned myself to it, but I'm getting close.

[oVo]

The "Occupiers" simply point a finger at the issues and problems and at this point are not a solution. IF they are indeed the 99% and get politically motivated to actually initiate change, there may be potential for the very first time in many decades to actually do something via elections.

The clout of millions of voters who are dissatisfied with both parties and the quid pro quo of government as it has been conducted in the United States since the 60's or longer could potentially negate Reps/Dems & Tea Party patsies.

Suck It Up Cupcakes!
giving away food only encourages the poor not to starve

[Ray Rider]

I don't know if you guys heard, but the Occupiers are spreading to Canada, and most recently, Vancouver is where they're starting a protest.

In Vancouver, at Occupy's first general assembly on Saturday, hundreds of people squeezed into the W2 Media Cafe to discuss the logistics of occupying the Art Gallery successfully. Eventually, the meeting was moved up to the atrium. There was no leader, and all participants were careful to use diplomatic language, such as, "I would recommend," or, "Do we all agree?"

Even though many had ideas for the actual demonstration, no one seemed to know what Occupy Vancouver's demands are.

"My suggestion would be that this is not the place to iron out demands, that (when we) occupy together, that is our time to figure ourselves out," said moderator Sarah Rose Edwards Noel, to which the crowd answered, "Agreed!"

"Let's just march and protest until we figure out why we're marching and protesting."

It would be funny if it weren't so sad and stupid....

[thegreekdog]

I don't know if you guys heard, but the Occupiers are spreading to Canada, and most recently, Vancouver is where they're starting a protest.

In Vancouver, at Occupy's first general assembly on Saturday, hundreds of people squeezed into the W2 Media Cafe to discuss the logistics of occupying the Art Gallery successfully. Eventually, the meeting was moved up to the atrium. There was no leader, and all participants were careful to use diplomatic language, such as, "I would recommend," or, "Do we all agree?"

Even though many had ideas for the actual demonstration, no one seemed to know what Occupy Vancouver's demands are.

"My suggestion would be that this is not the place to iron out demands, that (when we) occupy together, that is our time to figure ourselves out," said moderator Sarah Rose Edwards Noel, to which the crowd answered, "Agreed!"

"Let's just march and protest until we figure out why we're marching and protesting."

It would be funny if it weren't so sad and stupid....

So your saying Canadian protestors are just as stupid as American protestors? Honestly, I'm disappointed. I expected more of our more intelligent, funnier brethren to the north (unless you're in Alaska, then it's south east).

[Lootifer]

Which definition of capitalism do we use?

Adam Smith, the undisputed father of capitalism, once said, "It is not unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in proportion." So, using NS' logic, either that flat-tax talk is not capitalism, or the father of capitalism is a socialist.

Are people genuinely against progressive tax rates?!?

Jay-zuz, no wonder this world is up the creek...

[Army of GOD]

More than one Jay-Z is a Jay-Zuz

Such as: "The gang of Jay-Zuz suck at rapping just as much as a Jay-Z does."

[Lootifer]

More than one Jay-Z is a Jay-Zuz

It's actually a collective noun: A Jay-zuz of african american hip hop singers.

[natty dread]

www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152683/5_ ... ust?page=1

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152683/5_conservative_economic_myths_occupy_wall_st._is_helping_bust?page=1

Too polemic. Sorry, that's just not intellectually honest writing. May as well douse people's brains with gasoline and flick a match in. When ideology clouts logic and facts, I tend to stop reading because it's usually never worth the costs of sorting through that shoddy thinking.


What would you like us to know from that link?

[natty dread]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152683/5_conservative_economic_myths_occupy_wall_st._is_helping_bust?page=1

Too polemic. Sorry, that's just not intellectually honest writing. May as well douse people's brains with gasoline and flick a match in. When ideology clouts logic and facts, I tend to stop reading because it's usually never worth the costs of sorting through that shoddy thinking.


What would you like us to know from that link?

What exactly did you find dishonest about the article? I thought it made several good points.

I mean I'm not saying I agree with it entirely, but... good points.

[Army of GOD]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152683/5_conservative_economic_myths_occupy_wall_st._is_helping_bust?page=1

Too polemic. Sorry, that's just not intellectually honest writing. May as well douse people's brains with gasoline and flick a match in. When ideology clouts logic and facts, I tend to stop reading because it's usually never worth the costs of sorting through that shoddy thinking.


What would you like us to know from that link?

What exactly did you find dishonest about the article? I thought it made several good points.

I mean I'm not saying I agree with it entirely, but... good points.

Of course you do, because it agrees with your world views. And of course BBS dislikes it, because it disagrees with his worldview (are those comma splices?).

WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE PEOPLE. It's like we're making Saw sequels.

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152683/5_conservative_economic_myths_occupy_wall_st._is_helping_bust?page=1

Too polemic. Sorry, that's just not intellectually honest writing. May as well douse people's brains with gasoline and flick a match in. When ideology clouts logic and facts, I tend to stop reading because it's usually never worth the costs of sorting through that shoddy thinking.


What would you like us to know from that link?

What exactly did you find dishonest about the article? I thought it made several good points.

It misconstrues, it twists, and it's emotionally heated. Simply put, it's polemic. It's doesn't strive for intellectual honesty; it's taking part in an ideological crusade.

I read the first 3 paragraphs and realized where it's going.

We have been told that it’s good to give more and more to the wealthy few, that it’s good to send jobs and money out of the country, and especially that the people who run the big corporations are better and more “efficient” at deciding what’s best for the rest of us.

Yeah, just ignore the demands for regulation which increase the costs of labor and give strong incentives for US companies to outsource. And no one's really saying what he's misconstruing. It's much more complicated. His lovely straw man fallacy had me face-palming immediately, followed by a "OH BOY, HERE WE GO."

Free markets isn't "people with big corporations are better and more efficient at deciding what's best for the rest of us." That's just a bunch of bullshit coming from a guy who never read anything on free market principles--apparently. Based on his straw man fallacy, he's going to tap into those who emotionally believe this to be true, and then he's going to roll with it. As we shall see:

As those decades passed we watched as the wealthy few get wealthier and fewer, while the rest of us – the 99 percent – fall further and further behind.

If you aggregate the wealth of the 99%, it's more than the 1%'s. Isn't that funny?

And, what exactly are the negative repercussions of growing income gaps? It's never really addressed, but always glossed over from people with the author's ideology. And what are the problems of analyzing only income brackets while ignoring the individuals and the mobility between those brackets? Many. In fact, it undermines the perceived fear in this gap. It throws the dangers far into the irrational. I'm not saying that there's no concern, but the concern is over-hyped, and that's exactly what he's doing.

Many of us even incorporated the concepts into our own thinking. Others seemed to accept the cutbacks, the fees, the scams, the disappointments and the obviously false statements as the way things are.

Occupy Wall Street has changed all that. You can take that stuff and stuff it, they said. We’re tired of this. We aren’t going to listen anymore. We won’t passively accept the economic nonsense the corporate media tries to feed us and that we can see just doesn’t work. At least, it doesn’t work for 99 percent of us.

Whoa, really?! The Occupy Movement now has one voice?!?! AMAZING!!! Oh wait, oh wait, no they don't, and "free market" excuses weren't the only ones being espoused in order to justify the bailouts. It was both a strong Democrat and Republican movement to the bailouts with their various justifications of imminent danger and all that---WITH people loudly cheering the results--especially the left-wing people who I've come into contact. It's funny to note that some of them later realized the illusion. Too much faith in government--and not quite "free markets."

It's more complicated than his portrayal. His approach is polemic. There's no intellectual integrity here; just more propaganda from one narrow worldview.

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152683/5_conservative_economic_myths_occupy_wall_st._is_helping_bust?page=1

Too polemic. Sorry, that's just not intellectually honest writing. May as well douse people's brains with gasoline and flick a match in. When ideology clouts logic and facts, I tend to stop reading because it's usually never worth the costs of sorting through that shoddy thinking.


What would you like us to know from that link?

What exactly did you find dishonest about the article? I thought it made several good points.

I mean I'm not saying I agree with it entirely, but... good points.

Of course you do, because it agrees with your world views. And of course BBS dislikes it, because it disagrees with his worldview (are those comma splices?).

WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE PEOPLE. It's like we're making Saw sequels.

I'm willing to take strong criticism if it's coherent and logical. If it isn't, then f*ck it, because it's a waste of time. The point of being polemic isn't to logically argue a case; it's to drive up emotions in the effort of clouting rational thought in order to win minds. It's propaganda, and I'll continue to ignore it.

[Lootifer]

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/152683/5_conservative_economic_myths_occupy_wall_st._is_helping_bust?page=1

Too polemic. Sorry, that's just not intellectually honest writing. May as well douse people's brains with gasoline and flick a match in. When ideology clouts logic and facts, I tend to stop reading because it's usually never worth the costs of sorting through that shoddy thinking.


What would you like us to know from that link?

What exactly did you find dishonest about the article? I thought it made several good points.

I mean I'm not saying I agree with it entirely, but... good points.

Of course you do, because it agrees with your world views. And of course BBS dislikes it, because it disagrees with his worldview (are those comma splices?).

WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE PEOPLE. It's like we're making Saw sequels.

I for one am dissapointed that your derail didn't work.

[Army of GOD]

=(  

[BigBallinStalin]

=(  

[Nobunaga]

... The Working Families Party is paying protestors $350 to $650 a week to go crap on cop cars in New York.

... Tell your unemployed friends!! (they can find the ad on Craigslist).

...

[natty dread]

I read the first 3 paragraphs and realized where it's going.

I didn't really pay attention to the polemic part of the article, I was mainly looking at the actual points, after the first paragraphs.

Did you read the rest of the article?

These are what seemed the most reasonable to me:

2. Rich people are “job creators.”

This is the old “trickle-down” idea -- that if you give enough money to the already-rich eventually some of that money will trickle down to the rest of us. This is also called the “getting peed on” theory of economics.

The basis of this thinking comes from the theories of Ayn Rand, who argued that society consists of “producers” and “parasites.” Rand’s fundamentally anti-democratic ideology says that democracy is a form of “collectivism” in which people who don’t want to work and produce use their numbers to steal from a gifted few who are the “producers” of goods and services. Rand’s followers claim that wealthy people are rich because they “produce.” The rest of us are “parasites” who “take money” from the productive rich, by taxing them. This revenue is “redistributed” to the parasites to pay for our “entitlements.”

They say that if wealthy people have more money they will use that money to start businesses and hire people. But anyone with a real business will tell you that people coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs. In a real economy, people wanting to buy things – demand – is what causes businesses to form and people to be hired.

History – and a quick look around us today – shows that when all the money goes to a few at the top demand from the rest of us dries up and everything breaks down. Taxing the people at the top and reinvesting the money into the democratic society is fundamental to keeping things going.

5. “Protectionism” hurts the economy.

Corporate conservatives argue that “free trade” is always good under all circumstances. They say we get lower prices and our businesses are able to reach more customers. Of course trade can be a wonderful thing, increasing the standard of living on both sides of the trade border.

But the trade deals of recent decades have not been free or fair, and can’t really even be called “trade.” What has happened is countries sell to us but do not buy equally from us, causing huge trade deficits that have drained our economy and our jobs and our wages. Instead of increasing prosperity they have been used to increase exploitation of working people and the environment for the benefit of a wealthy few.

Our prosperity is the fruit of our democracy.

Conservatives say that it is good that businesses in countries like China are more competitive because they don’t have a lot of regulations to comply with. Countries where the people have little say in things don’t have to spend the money to pay minimum wages, keep the environment clean, keep workers safe and keep products up to standard and they don’t have to worry about lawsuits. They are more “efficient.” So they can charge less.

Conservatives who argue that we should have less regulation, lower wages, fewer benefits, fewer consumer, worker and environmental protections are really arguing that we should abandon democracy. By opening our borders to goods made where people do not have a say we made democracy a competitive disadvantage.

Again, I'm not saying I entirely agree with the article. But I also don't think you can dismiss out of hand because you don't like the writing style of the author.

If you aggregate the wealth of the 99%, it's more than the 1%'s. Isn't that funny?

Sure is... but when you take the top 20%, apparently they own over 90% of the wealth: